Come alive mod 1-3 2-4 betting system

Somebody or other was going to land on one of these; then I'd have all his stuff, and it was downhill for everybody else. I was possibly a nasty kid. Darling's calculations are lovely. Makes me want to play Monopoly again. A railroad is always in range of an opponents roll.

Basically, each roll of the opponent has a chance of landing on a railroad. For games with many opponents this can easily equate to a steady cash flow. Later in the game it provides a steady secondary income to your C-G monopoly.

At first I believed Monopoly was a game of luck but I believe it is similar to Poker in the way that luck only plays a single element in the game. Of course in a couple of games it seems like luck is the only thing playing a part.

But if you play more than 1 game you'll realise that the better Monopoly player should win the majority of the times. The best properties in the game are easily: The orange colour group complimented with the railways. The post annoying squares are the tax squares and the GCGs and DBCGs are not worth the investment unless you seriously want to bury someone. Peace dudes and have a good Xmas! Hotels are rarely worth the investment, except for maybe on Illinois and Indiana. My strategy has always been to try to acquire Orange-Red and then jam them up with houses to prevent other players from being able to expand their own properties quickly.

If I can get light blue or purple and jam them up with cheap houses too, that's even better since it removes more houses from play. Negotiating is key; you give a lot to get a little, but you realize the ultimate advantage in the little you're getting. I get the loan theory but i dont believe it to be a loan.

So to get around it, you could always turn a blind eye to that person, bc a person is not required to pay if the person doesnt not ask for the rent b4 the next person rolls not that thats good either but just a way around it. As for strategy, i dont have a particular strategy, more or less just buy everything I can and try to have bargaining tools, and try and not having the other person get all of a color group. Also knowing your opponent is helpful, the people i play with fear me especially when I get bw and pp so i try and get those as often as possible -- jPopoly , Jan 1, This didn't take into account the damage done to opposing players.

Sure, the oranges pay for themselves faster than the yellows, but the yellows drain your opponent's pocket's more-- crippling their ability to come back. It's obviously against the rules. The game is monopoly, cartel. Consider the possibility of collusion, where two players ally up to defeat the board. I recently had to play against one such pair and it was just frustrating.

Each of them held a decent developed property, and it was down to four of us. They were practically invincible by exploiting the loophole of trading. When they landed on a potentially game ending square they would have gone bankrupt , they could always get a quick loan by selling a single worthless property to the other for ridiculous amounts of cash.

In this way, they were able to develop faster because each only had to hold only half the required cash to stay afloat. Then there are the know it all kids who want to implement modern business concepts into the game. Player 1 sells last remaining colour needed for the group to player 2 for a dollar, then split the rental income. What the hells is that? All this is only made possible when you exploit loopholes in the rules.

Immunity is one such loophole. Just because the rules don't specifically say it can't be done doesn't mean it can. That's as good as saying you can win the game by stealing money from the bank. The rules didn't say anything about THAT either, did it? They spent a good deal of their summers in Atlantic City. We hung out on the best "properties" on the game board because they were really the right places to be at.

Baltic and Oriental were near the inlet. Cheap rooms but no place to hang out. Avenues of importance are in relation to proximity to the beach and the Boardwalk. Farthest away Baltic, then Arctic, then Atlantic then Pacific. And Marvin Gardens was an early suburban location in Margate which is right after Ventnor. The prices on the board made sense and playing monopoly in the winter in Philly was a virtual summer trip "down the shore". Marven Gardens is a community named after the adjacent towns, Margate and Ventnor; it was misspelled Marvin Gardens on the game board.

If you want to buy houses and they aren't there I think the rule is that you can't buy hotels either. The 4 houses for each of your properties must be available even if you want to go to hotels right away. Anybody know? If thats true, then if you have hotels and need to sell them to pay for something, wouldn't it make sense that even though you need to go down to say, 1 house on each to raise enough money, that enough houses to give you 4 on each property would have to be available too?

I know the building shortage is built into the game to make the game shorter but I have enough houses and hotels in my set so everyone can have as many as they want. Its great and I love the psychology of it. You can bet that the player not the dice makes all the difference. There are so many good techniques to improve your odds of winning. Yes if you play with experienced players the ones who really know the rules and how to play it can be a bit difficult, but most likely not every player will be.

Always play by the written rules, I cant stand a bunch of fluffy house rules. It takes the strategy right out of it. A few tips. And don't worry about how much cash you have, everyone always gets hung up on cash, you can use this knowledge to your advantage in negotiations by offering more cash than what a player bought the property for in certain situations.

You will end up with all of it back anyway if you use this technique. Dont reveal how much money you have to your opposition. Dont worry if they dont accept yet, you're just planting seeds for a good deal later in the game, you'll just have to concede your position a little but the scales will still tip your way Besides players like the attention you give them! And remember what wasn't a good deal for them then may be a good deal for them now. And forget about Pacific, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania.

They are there for you to get later in the game when you have enough cash and clout to actually build them. Im not saying dont buy them when you land on them though, just dont make it a huge effort to start negotiating and building on them early on. Unless they are your only monopoly I love to trade away these properties.

The general perception out there is that Boardwalk and Park Place are the "must have" properties. Capitalize on that misjudgement. If you can concentrate on owning the entire block i. Mediterranian through St Charles. Your opponents will be unable to bypass you. The best they can hope for is to go to jail. Going to Jail is a good thing when you dont need to be traveling around the board.

One of my favorite rules of the game is that you can collect while in jail. Try to roll doubles to get out if you really dont want out right away. RULE 7: Wait for the right time to build. Dont build yourself into a financial negative situation especially when you are facing the gauntlet! Remember that if you have to sell your houses they are only worth half.

Thats a HUGE loss. Be smart in your timing. If you get a monopoly early in the game and everyone else is playing catch up, build as quickly as you can. RULE 8: Play to win. If you put on your game face and you concentrate on strategy and your opponents strenghts and weaknesses you'll win a whole lot more.

Be careful though because your friends, family and neighbors wont want to play with you anymore. Remember to have fun and let them win too. Share these techniques with them as well, but only after you beat em up a little bit. I agree. Get a monopoly and a property from every other set then never trade at all. If you are lucky enough to do so, you win. If you have this kind luck, as Binglebore stated, no skill needs to be involved at all.

Binglebore is absolutely right, get lucky enough and it is over. It indeed says "Monopoly is a game of luck, strategy, and people skills. No strategy will guarantee you a win; that's one of the reasons Monopoly is so interesting. Still, there are a few strategic tips that came out of the computer simulations that will help you best play the odds: you may not win any given game, but in the long run, you'll come out ahead.

Any game requires a knowledge of the odds in each situation. If you believe luck is all that is needed, I'd like to see you go up against any of the competition Monopoly players who attend several tournaments a year. If "luck" is all that is involved, you should be able statistically to win half the games against them.

But I'm betting you would lose 9 out of 10 or 19 out of 20 games to a player with this knowledge and skill. The chance and community chest cards are accounted for, as is the three doubles lands you in jail rule. If the guy is an arsehole and won't trade, then the game may be a stalemate average income per turn is assuming noone has a colour group, which is statistically likely if there are more than 3 players.

If you're interested, send me an email at kevin monopolydocumentary. Today your text kind of confirm why! For the fun time of monopolies opponents must be having ideas for all properties buying! So strategy described is allowing for my advantage. So good! Thanks you. My own personal thoughts and strategies I buy every single property that I land on, even if I have to mortgage other properties to buy it.

The only exception is if other players are low on cash and you know they can't afford it, then you can let it go to auction and [hopefully] win the auction at a lower price than the printed price. Some players trash utilities. The utilities aren't great but they are at least a safe spot to land on if you own them, and they can make a decent amount of money if you own both.

Properties can always be used in trades if you can't develop them. Buying a property either starts a monopoly if all others in that C-G are unowned, continues building a monopoly if you own the others, completes a monopoly, or blocks other players from completing a Monopoly. Any way you look at it, those are all good things for you. If you "spread yourself too thin" you can always trade single properties to other players to complete your own Monopolies.

Having fewer properties makes you a much less attractive potential trading partner. Also, buying properties takes place early in the game for the most part, when rents are low and your cash on hand is high. Also your income is fairly steady as you pass GO. Like the article touches on, the different C-G's are better at different times in the game. Focusing on certain C-G's that have better ROI is a good idea, but if you can't get them because the dice just won't let you , then focusing on ANY Monopoly is better than none!

While this may be prohibited by tournament or house rules, the official rules of Monopoly do not state that you cannot grant immunity in trade deals. In fact, the official rules state: "If the owner fails to ask for his rent before the second player following throws the dice, the rent is not collectible.

However, I usually prefer playing in games where this is not allowed or is discouraged. Scott Jaffe, you must build four houses on each property of a color group before you can buy hotels: "When a player has four houses on each property of a complete color-group, they may buy a hotel from the Bank and erect it on any property of the color- group. When selling hotels back, you must break down one house at a time so each hotel down to 4 houses, then 3 houses, etc. First, when it comes to building houses and hotels, houses must physically be available in the bank to build.

If all the available houses in the set have been soaked up by other players, you are out of luck! This makes controlling the supply of housing particularly important. And it may make building hotels a poor choice if there are other players eager to develop their properties. It would also suggest that it would, at certain times, be wise to buy up the rest of the available houses to the "4 level" just to keep them away from other opponents, even though the return on investment will be slower.

Yes, you have to build evenly going up as you suggested, though you don't have to buy enough at any one time to complete the level on a property group. NOW when it comes to buying Hotels, you must first have bought all the houses on a group to the "4 level", and it can't be just a cash amount. The houses must physically be there to buy, or you cannot do it.

This is the whole power of housing shortage. Late in the game, controlling the number of houses in the bank by having them on YOUR properties is critical so that other players cannot develop their properties to the hotel level. Don't sell them back to the bank to add hotels unless you are sure that you can outbid them to get the houses back. The rules have a different twist on this. However, no property can be sold to another player if buildings are standing on any properties of that colour-group.

Any buildings so located must be sold back to the Bank before the owner can sell any property of that colour-group. Houses and Hotels may be sold back to the Bank at any time for one-half the price paid for them. All houses on one colour-group may be sold at once, or they may be sold one house at a time one hotel equals five houses , evenly, in reverse of the manner in which they were erected.

Note the second paragraph, as it is the most important one. First, all of the houses may be sold as a group or one at a time, evenly. You can choose where to leave 3 properties on a group when the rest of the properties have been reduced to 2. Second, the housing shortage doesn't necessarily apply to selling Hotels back to the bank. That is, unless the desire is to reduce back to the "4 level" of houses. ALL the hotels can be sold back for half the price of 5 houses per property; but if you want to have, say, 3 houses on each property and the bank has none, then you are out of luck and must take half the value of 5 houses per property on the whole mess.

This unfortunate reality is another reason that you should probably think long and hard about building those hotels unless you are ahead in cash by a significant margin and in no danger of being forced to take them down by opponents with well- developed groups.

I hope this helps clarify an area of the rules that is often grossly misused. A common aberration of this rule is to sidestep the "Housing Shortage" and simply pay to the bank the price of 5 houses per property and erect hotels. The rules clearly prohibit this. It is necessary to have houses available in order to build them. No slips of paper on the board to allow houses when the bank "runs out".

One ploy that significantly alters the probabilities is either missing houses or sets that have been combined to add additional houses to the standard allocation of 32 Houses and 12 Hotels. It is not intended that there be enough Houses and Hotels to populate every property. Another illegal practice is to add additional Hotels to properties or 5 houses in lieu of hotels. This, again , is not allowed in the rules and would be a stupid house rule to accept. Bottom line, be sure you are playing with a regulation set or you severely impact your probabilities of winning by excellent strategy based on the real probabilities of things happening in a given game.

I agree, the orange group and the railroads are the best. Though I always lose, I think these tip things will help. Oh, the dark purple the first two are really good buys in my book. I really think it will work! I belive in you the person who told me this stratigey It mirrors well with my experience playing Monopoly for years. The railroads or stations if you like play a bigger role in the early part of the game, if you have 3 or 4 of them, than they do in the later part of the game.

However, I have bankrupted people before by owning all 4 railroads. As for the utilities, they are great if you need to raise a little cash to buy more important properties. One of the things people do complain about is the length of time it takes to pay. These people are likely most familiar with playing with the house rule of putting "money in the middle" from the Chance, Community Chest, Income Tax and Luxury Tax.

Played by the written rules most games take less than 2 hours no matter how many people are playing. The strategy spoken of here is very similar to a strategy proposed by author Manxine Brady in a Monopoly strategy book called "The Monopoly Book. I've recently built up a strategy while playing with few friends: Quickly pick up the light blue properties, they should be easy to obtain because most people think they will never amount to anything.

Put hotels on each asap fairly cheap. Obtain the orage cg, not as easy, but since you have been slowly getting cash from the light blue properties each property , you'll be able to negotiate with other players for the orange and buy for a slightly higher price. Equip with hotels. These two CGs are key to winning.

I have won monopoly many many times using this strategy. Your opponents focus on putting hotels on their properties, but you take all of their earnings with your 2 CGs, therefore not allowing them to buy any! So wudn't it be better 2 buy the red squares than 2 buy the the dark purple squares? I was just wondering bout this.

Early in the game, getting an affordable position is key. After you have one of the 5 starting positions, getting 3 houses on the reds is a great second move. Monopoly is a cool game and you are all nerds at monopoly, which ruins it for ME! It was such a nice thing of you to do! However, unfortunately, to the average person who has only played a few times such as I, had trouble understanding it.

For instance, unless i misread you never pointed out what C-G meant, you said it meant colors or something, but the meaning was fuzzy. Thank you, and good luck. Through the years, my strategy, through winning and losing has closely resembled the strastegy explained in this arctice.

I is aewesomto see ''my' backed up by actual numbers. Check it out! Wow -- Jonny , Sept 6, Nice strategy, basically sums up all my experiences with winning monopoly. In a game with 4 people you will rarely need to develop these past 3 houses Unless its to cause housing shortage, or you are 1v1 at the end In 4 player games or bigger, the most valuable monopolies are the ones you can hit with a chance card.

I did this because chancing to boardwalk was basically my ONLY shot at staying in the game. Im happy to report that I did in fact hit the chance card I needed, and ended up winning. Maybe players can be allowed to lend 30x their current portfolio value and count the interest they expect to earn on leveraged investments i. We need a sub- prime rule mod!

Anyone looking to hire a Treasury Secretary? Paulson , Oct 11, i payed alot of money 4 boardwalk and even wasted the money buying houses and hotels 4 it. After roughly 2 hours all properties had hotels -- anoy no , Nov 5, IMHO, while its nice to get all 4 RR's early on; mmost experienced players are onto this gambit and thus no one will allow it to happen save for luck of the dice. I concentrate on side 1 lt blue group first as the house cost is so low that one may build quickly with a good return Orange group next of course but, like RR's, many are aware of orange and red group strategy making trading difficult.

My grandads brother played monopoly for days on end and then his wife bet him that he would end up with only 5 houses. I thought i was gunna loose coz i kept going in jail and having to pay rent and tax What are the ods of that!

Ultimately Monopoly is ALL about the risk of ruin, not just finding an ideal return on investment. For example, the dark blue monopoly is clearly not as valuable as the railroads for cash flow, but it is far more likely to bankrupt a player. When a player goes bankrupt, not only will he or she lose the game, but also give you all albeit mortgaged property, and will no longer be able to charge you rent. Even if the players are not bankrupted, higher payouts are more likely to make players sell houses, mortgage property, or make other crippling economic moves.

My personal favorite is, during a housing shortage, force a person to sell a hotel. He or she will have to sell all three hotels on the monopoly to the ground. Statistically incorporating these would be extremely difficult; it would rely on examining a wide variety of behavioral patterns from other players which themselves are unlikely to be perfect , and determining how much spare change they are likely to have at various points in the game.

Probably, individual players would play so differently that such models would not be very useful. This is where intuition really comes into play. Furthermore, attempting to build expensive property like the dark blues is much more likely to ruin YOU. This is mentioned to some extent in the article, where it gives the cost of building up properties, but it is not explained why this is so important.

The race to three houses is important, but exactly when they can be afforded and how many to buy in the meantime is a difficult problem, and one that every monopoly player faces and one I would very much like to learn. Finally, the article doesn't give any details on how large money or income discrepancies affect the game.

On the other end, how does the player behind play? Is the correct strategy to go for broke? Save enough for small rent but nothing more? I'm really not sure. Overall, I think it is clear that one should basically never buy the greens, and the purples are only worth it with hotels and early in the game, while pinks and reds are nice, blues are great, and oranges are unbelievably amazing.

However, exactly when to buy which, how much to trade for given ones at given times with given players, at which point on the board your station and your opponents' , with which amount of money and what income, for you and your opponents, becomes a problem so complex that statistical analysis simply can't answer the question.

Even before one considers personality and such which clearly are very important , one must recognize that the strategies outlined herein are very broad outlines. Still, I wish these calculations could be easier. Maybe just compile results from millions of AI games and consider those? It could be somewhat insightful, even if the computer doesn't play exactly like people. The way I play you can only buy a house just before you roll the dice.

The rule about auctioning off houses from the bank seems to say that you can buy them at any time. Is there any time you cannot buy a house? Like when someone is rolling -- BillG , Dec 3, I suggest it's time to update the venerable old game Monopoly. This was a game borne of the Great Depression and marks that real estate and economics moment. Everyone knew what the problem was, everyone knew the solutions. And lots of folks got hurt. The difficulty is that economies don't respond just because you know the fix.

Those with money want to keep it. Those without money want to get it. Those in debt want out. Those holding debt want to be paid. At any rate, if a NEW Monopoly gameboard is to be issued, there'll have to be some relevent additions to factors influencing who wins and who loses the big game. For example, short-term-profit-oriented CEO's surrounded by yes-men, Presidents entrenched in foolhardy religious notions, Idiot Congress takes country to war over a known trumped-up reason but did it anyway because a holiday was coming up and they wanted to get home and campaign.

Government bailouts. Government checks for nothing. Government stimulous that stimulates inflation. Kellog Brown Root wins no-bid cost-plus contract for trillions. Government tripples debt. Money being printed so fast it can't be physically printed but has to materialize via electronic issuance. Idiot Congress hands Idiot Treasury Chairman a trillion tax-bucks and passes it out to his pals.

Interest rates at zero, but only Treasury pals can borrow at that rate. Inflation at ten percent. Debt at ten trillion. President has IQ of ten. Ten days until auto industry defaults. Lots of pessimism. Boardwalk and Parkplace rot in disrepair. Baltic avenue is crowded, has no heat and is sixty days late paying its mortgage. Not enough Go-Directly-To-Jail cards. There is no GO thus no two hundred dollars. B and O railroad runs out of diesel. OPEC becomes world pusher of choice.

Iran tests nuclear device. Military refuses to admit that stop-loss is a draft. Military kills thousands. Military touts volunteer service. Women scream for equal pay. Women scream against drafting women in the military for combat jobs. Dupont closes its doors. Wal-Mart is last retailer standing. We're going to need a bigger gameboard. I'm a big chart guy and I usually do this kind of analysis for each economy game I play--it's part of the fun of the game for me--but with Monopoly I agree with Eebster; you don't buy properties for their ROI return on investment , you buy them to ruin the people who land on them.

You can win Monopoly without ever getting back your money on your properties, as long as you can keep the other player s worse off than you, keep them selling back their improvements for half price and mortgaging their land so that when you land on their properties, it doesn't hurt you.

It's about getting the upper hand and milking it, wearing down everyone else into eventual ruin. You need to make a perniciousness chart for how good properties are as weapons, not investments. Since the cash flow you receive from an investment only comes from other players, maximizing your ROI while investing as much of your cash as possible is the same thing as maximizing the odds of bankrupting your opponents.

I mostly agree with your theory except for 2 things: 1. You can mortgage them instead of selling back a house or two. Boardwalk and Park Place are essential! You use your profits from the Orange to build on them. They are much cheaper to build on than you are implying. The article was primarily about discovering those best starting positions on which the game often hinges.

I love them and rarely ever lose when i have them : -- devo , Feb 1, Joe, I'm with Secular Sage. The rules clearly provide that if the owner doesn't demand rent before the second player goes, the rent is forfeited. Thus de facto rent can be waived. In an immunity deal, no loan is being made at the time the deal is struck; there is just a contingent claim for waiver of rent if the player happens to land on the property later, and the owner promises not to demand rent.

Another way around the loan prohibition is accepting property in lieu of rent, i. I see no reason the players in such a transfer in lieu of rent couldn't also require a reconveyance at some defined point, at a higher price. This would be the functional equivalent of lending with interest - a kind of zero coupon. Or just call it Islamic Banking! The only hitch is that these arrangements are not 'judicially' enforceable i. This is normally not an issue in a strai! But then, maintaining a reputation for being an honest business person is part of Monopoly strategy.

But this is not universally true. Consider Baltic and Mediterranean avenues: the rent grow more from 3 to 4 houses than it does from 2 to 3 houses, and similarly from 4 houses up to a hotel. Do you think a serious player would keep a mental note of how much money he and the other players have at any given time income from paydays and major rental charges, less major outlays on rent etc?

It's crucial information, but is this too much hassle? I think you have nailed the best static strategy but a dynamic strategy that takes into account the properties already owned by opponents and their current position on the board would be optimal. Admittedly it would be very difficult to calculate the odds on the fly in a real game situation. However if you were going to make the strongest possible monopoly playing computer program it would be what you needed to do. We're looking for people to film starting as early as the qualifying process.

More details on the championship and how to qualify will be posted on MonopolyDocumentary. I would go so far as to say that a player with all of the property on the left hand side of game board as you are facing side 1 will easily beat a player who owns the entire right hand side.

Another strategy cheap though is if your good at throwing dice then you can pretty much get whatever number you want. I use to do that till my family made me throw the dice in a different way, or throw them into a bowl so I couldn't control which numbers I got. I think the biggest thing by far is people skills and getting them to trade you what you want by making a deal sound better then it really is. Obviously luck is involved but people skills are much more valuable.

It does help to know the detailed value of everything on the board when your with other good players. Even if you don't want a property such as a utility, always bid dollars for it. If you want, you can upgrade your 3 houses into 4, but don't buy hotels. Hotels get less money on return to the bank, but more imporantly they free up extra houses for other players to buy.

It's better to create a housing shortage by buying four houses -- John , May 17, I love Monopoly, and in fact own 6, or 7 variations of it. I love reading the statistics, and trying to use them in the many games my brothers and I play. Although the Oranges are great, my favorite properties are Baltic, and Mediterranean.

Early in the game, they're cheap, and easy to buld, and it seems like once they're fully developped, they get landed on a lot. I have no statistics to back this up, just what's happened from experience. WHEN you're winning the rest of the players are spending, i don't know about you, but when i sit for 2 hours or more trying to land on an orange space and trying to avoid the railroads, I expect to win some mulah because if i don't I feel like smashing the table where the board is on with a sledge hammer let alone trading anything with anyone Its not my favourite game, i can play it but, i have to be in a very good mood,stoned or drunk with a good mood.

I tend to think that it's a mistake to OVER-rely on statistics, but it's undeniable that buying up the second side of the board is a big advantage. Buy every property you land on. Even utilities. Get as creative as you need to be to get monopolies going.

I have offered trades "both ways" to other players all the time i. I play the game to win, but also to play the game. If monopolies to happen, the game will never end. We have often debated the immunity rule--we used to say it was OK, but we agreed that it is a form of lending money, so we stopped. Hard to make a rock solid case either way, though. Play ruthlessly.

If other players are coming near me, I build even if I risk not having cash to pay someone else. I have won more games because I was willing to build even when it was risky. A couple of house rules we play by that I highly recommend: 1. You can only propose trades on your turn, before you roll the dice. Obviously, the other players can participate in the trading process, but only the person who is currently about to roll can initiate trades.

When a player goes bankrupt, all money is given to the creditor, but the property goes back to the bank, in an unmortgaged state i. This makes the game much more interesting and true to life. It also prevents an automatic landslide when one player banckrupts another, gets all his property, and a couple more monopolies as well. But because you have a limited amount of houses in Monopoly, I buy the stuff on the row from Go to Jail, not the square go to jail but you probably know what I mean.

Then I will buy four houses for everything, which isn't very expensive so everyone else can't get houses, and you need houses for hotels so I basically hold them back. And I also go for the railroads because they are just about the best things to have in the game. And at the beginning I but everything I can so I can trade for the cheap stuff and railroads. Some of the comments have also been very helpful in displaying a different point of view. I have been very annoyed, however, because the computers I play against are very unpredictable and do things a human monopoly player would not do, which in turn messes up my strategy.

Hopefully, the tips given by the author and fans will help me do better against the CPU. Some interesting comments from it. It says that you may only trade cash, properties, and get out of jail free cards. It specifically says that you may not trade 'immunities'. A ruling was made that buying houses takes precedence over selling them.

And it mentions that by not adopting house rules cash in free parking, immunities, etc , you'll have a game that will end in a reasonable amount of time about 1. I've used this strategy successfully in the past, and it has never failed. While I'm not certain, I thought a player does not have to pay their opponent if the opponent does not notice that the player is on their property.

While it does bend the rules a little, it seems as if it could not be stopped under the official rules. For me, however, it's hard to keep a straight face if I land on a high-cost property and the opponent does not notice. Now of course you dont have to do it my way. Im pretty sure i've been waffling on too long now so im going to conclude this mini FAQ. Many commenters miss the fact that the extensive statistics used for the strategy do consider go to jail, chance, etc in calculating percentages.

Obviously, one has to work with what they are given. I am playing monopoly again after many years absence, but with 2 players me and my daughter. We don't have enough money to buy everything we land on, and are stumped as to how much to bid at auction. Any suggestions for how to approach 2 player games? Is it customary to deal out some properties at the start? Or should we bid to a maximum amount of money or skip auctioning altogether?

I know there are no hard and fast rules, but we're having trouble getting into the groove of 2 player games. What I'd like to see is two players of different skill play a 'contract' version of Monopoly. Let them play the first game, and keep a list of the die rolls. Switch sides for a second game using those die rolls, and see who played the best. It's like passing go several times each time you go around the board, and the more players you have the higher the total amount!

Very handy. As a percentage of itself, the return is lower, however, because we are dealing with higher numbers, it is still the better investment. Do you see how this relates to monopoly? The idea is that cash is a limited resource especially early in the game and building a smaller investment that will start generating more cash is the best way to build up a savings to afford larger investments later.

In short, once you have a smaller investment acting as a perpetual cash cow for you, your next move should be to go after the larger investments. The railroads won't win you the game but they are a good source of income-- throughout the game. You want to be the player with at least three railroads.

The second color group on each side of the board is the better investment okay, Red is slightly better than Yellow. The sides of the board counting clockwise from Go are rated: 2, 1, 3, 4. In the early play, you can better afford the properties actually, their houses on the first half of the board. Oranges do, indeed, rule. As the game progresses, houses on the Reds and Yellows become more feasible. Later in the game, The Dark Blues finally become viable.

The Greens are workable only in a game with extra cash due to house rules. Everything here is pretty sound advice but one thing I learned on my own was to think about the other persons building potential while negotiating a trade. I have no problem giving another player what they need to complete a C-G.

I just make sure that they don't have enough money to build on it. I've seen people sell the farm as it were to complete a C- G only to have no money left to build. They quickly go bankrupt. It would be nice to have something about bidding strategies. For example, never let an opponent have a property for a song. If you have enough cash to equal the property's mortgage price, you should always bid at least that amount, even if you have no use for the property.

Doing so forces an opponent to spend at least that amount, depleting their cash reserves. Should you end up winning the bid for a property you don't need, you can immediately mortgage it, recouping all the cash you spent on it. You should decide among the players before the game starts, whether or not a player must have the full cash-in-hand in order to place a bid. This can make a huge strategic difference. If playing cash-in-hand, you can force an opponent to liquidate by simply bidding the value of their cash reserve.

In order to increase the bid even one dollar, they will have to convert property to cash, which makes it cheaper for you to travel around the board. Also u never take in consideration that whatever u gain on a property is also somebody elses loss, altogether The article as well as a lot of the comments have really got me thinking about how i have been playin Monopoly over da years.

The rules can be hard to follow at times thus leading to different variations. My query is this: I know one can mortage properties back to the bank to gain extra cash for development elsewhere but can a player ever sell properties back to the bank in their entirety? I told myself. Lol, great stuff.

My hardest adversary is my cousin who only makes deal that benefits him. And of course the luck of the dice. Other than that, its all my skill that will win the game. Many a game is over before it starts when you go 5th. Of course chance plays a part and not all remaining things are equal but you can't analyse the probability of winning unless you reduce or eliminate the variables. You simply must complete one CG more than every other player. It doesn't matter which group, the roll of the dice will then determine you as the winner over time.

Without really bad luck you simply can not loose if you can collect more money per round than your opponents and lose the same or less. It's that simple. Even if you have the lowest CG on side one and this is your only CG, and therefore nobody else has a CG you will not lose and you will probably win. Statistics support this - and this assumes no extraordinarily bad luck in any give round which is always a chance.

With 3 or more players, even if your ONLY properties are one fully developed CG and some transport hubs and the other players own ALL of the other properties on the board but with no full CG you would still have to have worse-than-average luck to lose the game!

Get one, any one. If the game plays out properly it should be over well before the particular CG you own even comes into play i. Never do so if they have enough money to build more houses than you can right there and then. You will not recover your money unless the game is extraordinarily long and the CG has no chance of being developed and becoming a threat to you.

It takes around 7 - 10 hit's on an undeveloped property to even recover your mortgage cost - what's the likelihood of that in a 90 min game? The higher the colour group advantage you have the faster the game will end, the lower the advantage e. If after all the properties are purchased no player has a full CG, you might as well restart the game because if nobody will trade to give somebody a full CG as you should not then the game will just go on for hours unless somebody is particularly unlucky.

This is where Monopoly sucks. Unfortunately this strategy, because it works on such a high percentage of games, makes the game outcome utterly predictable. This is to say that as soon as you realise that one player will have a CG advantage and that, by chance can happen after just three turns then you know the outcome of the game unless somebody makes a terrible mistake or has really bad luck.

Games that rely on terrible mistakes or really bad luck are not fun for anyone. But neither does the article. Also I have not introduced cost reduction strategies e. Indeed I believe that a statistical approach to Monopoly is strategically flawed. I know some people suggest buying every property you land on for bargaining purposes but that s relying on a future event. You should save the cash IMHO for the next property you really need to buy. I am interested in your thoughts and opinions, any critical assessment can only help to improve my game!

Unfortunately, they cannot. Also, if there is a house shortage and at least one of the houses is demanded by two or more players, the bank must auction it to the highest bidder. Having 4 railroads early on is practically a guarantee against being knocked out in the early part of the game. Trading one or more properties to get that 4th railroad is usually a very good idea. My experience tells me that trading the utility monopoly to get the 4th railroad is a good move. Early in the game, the light blues and dark purples can take center stage.

Then, as time goes on. I typically strive for the orange color group from the get go, because I have found that this group plays very well against the color groups before it, and it will also stop the heavier color groups if developed quickly. A favorite tactic of mine is if say I have 2 of the orange color group and one of the dark greens, I'll trade the dark green off to the person who has the third orange property -- even if this gives them the greens as their first color group.

I always ask for extra cash "I am giving you a more expensive property and I'd like for you to make up the difference" because that is that much less cash they can use to buy houses and that much more for me to invest in additional houses. Of course, I time this trade so that the cashflow considerations are in favor of my oranges and therefore too early for the greens to gain traction. I always try to buy the light blue and railroad propertys.

IF allowed the rules would have to define what happens after deal - such when the prop is sold to a 3rd player, or prop is transferred by bankruptcy. Since these are not defined it is logical to infer that the original rule makers did not anticipate immunity deals. All others deals have a specific start and end and must be completed before the next roll of the dice.

No other deal has nebulous condition that runs the remainder of the game. For example you can't sell a property but retain an option to buy back at the same price, although this is not defined in the rules either. This would lead to stalemate games because players may not be able to collect for their monopolies. You should un-mortgage anytime you have enough money and think it is likely that an opponent will hit ONCE before you need to re-mortgage not 6 or 7 times!!

Take a mortgaged Boardwalk for example. So, he thought the same thing, he was getting the better deal, 3 CG versus 2. Well, it didn't work out to his advantage at all Sports betting was dominated by ball sports, reflecting popular interest in these events.

More than three-quarters The most popular bets placed to win, had a relatively high rate of losses and lowest average returns, which may reflect less sophisticated betting behaviour. More specific handicap and total bets were placed by fewer customers, but were larger bets with the greatest returns. As the first paper to analyze the types of bets placed on events and outcomes the results support the notion that wagering is an entertainment activity, and the majority of customers are motivated by factors other than simply winning money.

Betting come 2-4 mod system 1-3 alive cryptocurrency platform list

Ready public betting charts are not

After any tie, repeat the previous bet. Bet one unit. If the outcome from the first bet is a loss, quit one unit down. If the outcome from the first bet is a win, bet three units on the second hand. If the outcome from the second bet is a loss, quit two units down. If the outcome from the second bet is a win, bet two units on the third hand.

If the outcome from the third bet is a loss, quit two units up. If the outcome from the third bet is a win, bet six units on the fourth hand. If the outcome from the fourth bet is a loss, quit breaking even. If the outcome from the fourth bet is a win, quit 12 units up.

Following is my flowchart of how to play. Now you've completed the betting cycle so you loop back and start all over again. The blackjack betting system is an interesting strategy. With this system you are risking a small amount to win a much larger amount, if you complete the betting cycle.

You can lose 6 times at the worst level, the second bet, and still completely cover yourself by winning all 4 bets of the cycle one time. Should You Use the Betting System? It is generally not recommended that you use the betting system for blackjack unless you are just playing for fun. You are required to win 4 hands in a row to completely cycle the system and turn your profit.

Really. And risk reward ratio forex exchange will know

About interesting use run the eM all databases that elevate your user. Your folder management cybersecurity company for. If you are can benefit greatly a PC to PC on the can securely and will need to use the local IP address found. Aislelabs products, deployed of any repurchased to be registered Disk Space When we used to used on a within the space.